◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲▼Toggle AllToC▲▼Add to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply

Search TextCase SensitiveExact WordsInclude Comments

List of Bookmarks

No sooner do terrorists attack, than those who monopolize the conversation revert to abstractions: “terrorism returned,” “terror struck,” when, of course, not terrorism, but terrorists struck Barcelona, Spain, on August 17. Terrorists did the same days later, in Newcastle, England and in Turku, Finland.

The men who murdered 14 in Spain, maiming and injuring over 100, 15 of them critically, are flesh-and-blood. Young, Muslim, Moroccan men with murder on their minds. It is the duty of governments to bar such men from civilized society, or keep such barbarians at bay.

So, drop the Orwellian bafflegab when describing what elites have wrought through their policies. The Maghrebi Muhammadans—aged, 17, 18, 22 and 24—had been given free range and limitless access to their victims, in the name of those victims’ freedoms. The only lucky sorts living safely are the elites who grant the barbarians license to kill.

Thus were Theresa May, the Spanish royals and other leaders—well-protected courtesy of their taxpayers—able to flout the reality faced by the ordinary fellow and utter fatuities like, “These assassins, these criminals won’t terrorize us.” The truth is that these darling buds of May and Merkel do and will continue to terrorize ordinary men and women, but will spare invulnerable elites for reasons obvious.

Of Spain’s many millions, “only” 14 lives were lost in one day, in Barcelona. Similar numbers obtain in London, Manchester, Melbourne, Paris, Nice, Normandy, Stockholm, Saint Petersburg, Berlin, Hamburg, Columbus (Ohio): Only a few people were picked off in each attack, this year. In the grand scheme of things, the numbers are relatively small. Or, so we’re lectured by the contemptible aggregators who decide who will reside among us.

On TV, June 1, 2017, Alex Nowrasteh, immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, argued that “foreign-born terrorism is a hazard,” but a “manageable” one, “given the huge economic benefits of immigration and the small costs of terrorism.”

Spoken like a collectivist, central planner and utilitarian rolled into one.

This is the Benthamite “utilitarian calculus” at its cruelest. It requires, first, for someone to play God. Whether she sits in Downing Street, D.C., Brussels, or Barcelona; the Godhead has determined that Muslims in our midst are a must in bringing “the greatest good to the greatest number of citizens.” Along the way, a few people will die. For the greater good.

In the words of “Stalin’s apologist” Walter Duranty, ”You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.”

However, a natural-rights libertarian values the life of the innocent individual. Only by protecting each individual’s rights—life, liberty and property—can the government legitimately enhance the wealth of the collective. Only through fulfilling its nightwatchman role can government legitimately safeguard the wealth of the nation. For each individual, secure in his person and property, is then free to pursue economic prosperity, which redounds to the rest.

See, statistics are silly unless given context. If you have one foot in fire, the other in ice, can we legitimately say that, on average, you’re warm? Hardly.

Probabilities, in this case the chance that any one of us will die-by-Muslim, are statistically insignificant—unless this happens to you or to yours, to me or mine.

It is this crude calculus that politicians and policy wonks like the Catoite mentioned peddle.

ORDER IT NOW

Were it possible to arrange for wonks, pols and their beloved to pay for the policies they promulgate—were these ugly aggregators told, “Yes, we like your idea of flooding western societies with Muslims at the price of a few lives—provided that those lives lost belong to you and yours; the John McCains and Jeff Flakes of the world would quickly retract their policy follies.

The terror problem isn’t “manageable”. The thousands murdered in NYC and D.C., the hundreds dead in Europe are only the beginning. Everywhere Islam makes inroads, it subjugates and exploits the native-born population. Like locusts, they move on to new bountiful areas once they have extracted everything of value from their present landing site. Western Europe is doomed, the U.S. is uncertain, and even China’s immune system is beginning to be weakened by the multicult, PC diversity rot.

You know this already, I’m just writing for the benefit of the space aliens who will come visiting in 10,000 years and puzzle over what ended human civilization.

Read More

ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.

AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

It’s amazing to me that Trump’s initiative to vet incoming possible problem people is met with such scorn.
Nothing he or says fails to unleash the flow of vituperation. People cannot abide change from comfort level.

Every time there’s a Muslim terrorist attack in Europe or America we’re reminded that’s it’s all our (the West’s) fault and just blow-back for bombing and invading several Muslim nations. Or that it’s “part and parcel of living in the big city” in the words London’s Muslim mayor Khan.

But Spain and Finland haven’t bombed or invaded any Muslim nation so the Muslims and Western Islamophiles need to come up with some new material and fast. I think in its heyday of helping the U.S. and coalition forces Spain had all of 50 troops stationed in Iraq which they withdrew in 2004 after the terror bombings of commuter trains.

Eastern Europe, The Koreas, Japan and China refuse to accept any Muslim immigrants and refugees and they don’t suffer any terrorist attacks. Funny how that works.

Don't know about Finland, but Spain has their military training Iraqi Army units so that's not exactly neutral:
https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2014/10/09/actualidad/1412867011_131222.html

That doesn't justify the killing of civilians at all, but the government of Spain cannot claim it has not made itself (and its citizens) a target for counter attacks by a group that has little moral qualms.

Funny how that works.

This is true actually; no Muslims, no Muslim terrorist attacks. It is as unassailable as; no US, no US invasion of Iraq.

Every time there's a Muslim terrorist attack in Europe or America we're reminded that's it's all our (the West's) fault and just blow-back for bombing and invading several Muslim nations. Or that it's "part and parcel of living in the big city" in the words London's Muslim mayor Khan.

But Spain and Finland haven't bombed or invaded any Muslim nation so the Muslims and Western Islamophiles need to come up with some new material and fast. I think in its heyday of helping the U.S. and coalition forces Spain had all of 50 troops stationed in Iraq which they withdrew in 2004 after the terror bombings of commuter trains.

Eastern Europe, The Koreas, Japan and China refuse to accept any Muslim immigrants and refugees and they don't suffer any terrorist attacks. Funny how that works.

Don’t know about Finland, but Spain has their military training Iraqi Army units so that’s not exactly neutral:

That doesn’t justify the killing of civilians at all, but the government of Spain cannot claim it has not made itself (and its citizens) a target for counter attacks by a group that has little moral qualms.

Funny how that works.

This is true actually; no Muslims, no Muslim terrorist attacks. It is as unassailable as; no US, no US invasion of Iraq.

Don’t know about Finland, but Spain has their military training Iraqi Army units so that’s not exactly neutral:

I don't read Spanish but it looks like 300 troops are in an advisory capacity only based on other sources I could find. Spain has refused to take part in any combat operations since 2004 and even then they had a laughably low number of troops in Iraq who didn't do very much.

They are advising the "good" Muslims against the "bad" Muslims. It's not as if they are advising Christians and Buddhists on how to kill Muslims. You and the rest of the Muslim world should be rejoicing over this and not rationalizing the terrorist attack.

Troops acting in an advisory capacity is not the same as actively bombing, invading or taking part in combat operations, so my original point stands.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/barcelona-attack-spain-terrorists-warnings-cia-security-eta-defeat-basque-separatists-a7900751.html
From the article: Spain announced in 2015 that it would not join the US-led air campaign against Isis in Iraq and Syria. It has an army training team in Iraq but its members do not take part in combat

So the Islamist reasoning for attacking Spain is quite thin and it must be assumed that blind hatred and desire to kill Western infidels is part of the motive. However, Spanish troops in Iraq are fair game since they are in a combat zone and some Iraqis won't appreciate their presence.

This is true actually; no Muslims, no Muslim terrorist attacks. It is as unassailable as; no US, no US invasion of Iraq.

More like no Israel, no U.S. invasion of Iraq since they and their U.S. agents were clamoring for regime change. But I've noticed you pull your punches when it comes to Jews and Israel.

Don't know about Finland, but Spain has their military training Iraqi Army units so that's not exactly neutral:
https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2014/10/09/actualidad/1412867011_131222.html

That doesn't justify the killing of civilians at all, but the government of Spain cannot claim it has not made itself (and its citizens) a target for counter attacks by a group that has little moral qualms.

Funny how that works.

This is true actually; no Muslims, no Muslim terrorist attacks. It is as unassailable as; no US, no US invasion of Iraq.

Don't know about Finland, but Spain has their military training Iraqi Army units so that's not exactly neutral:
https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2014/10/09/actualidad/1412867011_131222.html

That doesn't justify the killing of civilians at all, but the government of Spain cannot claim it has not made itself (and its citizens) a target for counter attacks by a group that has little moral qualms.

Funny how that works.

This is true actually; no Muslims, no Muslim terrorist attacks. It is as unassailable as; no US, no US invasion of Iraq.

Peace.

Don’t know about Finland, but Spain has their military training Iraqi Army units so that’s not exactly neutral:

I don’t read Spanish but it looks like 300 troops are in an advisory capacity only based on other sources I could find. Spain has refused to take part in any combat operations since 2004 and even then they had a laughably low number of troops in Iraq who didn’t do very much.

They are advising the “good” Muslims against the “bad” Muslims. It’s not as if they are advising Christians and Buddhists on how to kill Muslims. You and the rest of the Muslim world should be rejoicing over this and not rationalizing the terrorist attack.

Troops acting in an advisory capacity is not the same as actively bombing, invading or taking part in combat operations, so my original point stands.

From the article: Spain announced in 2015 that it would not join the US-led air campaign against Isis in Iraq and Syria. It has an army training team in Iraq but its members do not take part in combat

So the Islamist reasoning for attacking Spain is quite thin and it must be assumed that blind hatred and desire to kill Western infidels is part of the motive. However, Spanish troops in Iraq are fair game since they are in a combat zone and some Iraqis won’t appreciate their presence.

This is true actually; no Muslims, no Muslim terrorist attacks. It is as unassailable as; no US, no US invasion of Iraq.

More like no Israel, no U.S. invasion of Iraq since they and their U.S. agents were clamoring for regime change. But I’ve noticed you pull your punches when it comes to Jews and Israel.

It sounds like 50 Finish cheerleaders helping the Kurdish Peshmerga. Not exactly a force multiplier against ISIS. Their presence and contribution is negligible so for Muslims to attack allegedly based on this tells me it’s more about blind hatred of the Western infidel than revenge for battlefield reverses suffered by ISIS.

Again, the Finns have not bombed inside Iraq or taken part in combat operations. Their assistance seems to be window dressing more than anything probably so they qualify for some U.S. goodies.

I was clear that I was not justifying a terrorist attack, as targeting innocent civilians is immoral - period. It doesn't matter whether Spain and Finland send their troops to literally barbeque and eat Muslim babies - Muslims cannot respond to the crimes of others by committing actions deemed immoral under the sacred law.

Rationalizing has to do with observing actions and motivations; one can both condemn the dropping of the atomic bomb and come to a rational conclusion why it was dropped on Hiroshima and not Muscat or Nairobi.

blind hatred and desire to kill Western infidels is part of the motive

Of course, they are extremists - this should be a base level assumption. These are very dangerous and unstable people. I am making a simple statement; if governments like Spain and Finland want to publicly join an International Coalition against Daesh and send their troops to train other troops that will be on the front lines against Daesh, it doesn't take a genius to figure out they are attracting attention and making their country a target for retaliation; this is simple logic - morality has nothing to do with it. What you consider to be sufficient casus belli has nothing to do with it; if they have determined training enemy troops is cause enough to warrant an action, that's all one needs to know to develop policies to avoid catching their attention.

Now if Daesh starts sending people to slit throats in Ecuador or Mongolia, I'll correct myself and agree, there seems to be absolutely no rational reason for these guys to target specific countries and there is literally nothing you can do to stay off their radar.

More like no Israel, no U.S. invasion of Iraq since they and their U.S. agents were clamoring for regime change.

OK - so let's go with nuance then; no Wahhabi-Salafi extremists, then no terrorism to worry about.

But I’ve noticed you pull your punches when it comes to Jews and Israel.

Why, because I distinguish between decent and honest Jews and vile, dishonest ones - or because when we retake sovereignty over the Holy Land, I don't want a bloodbath?

It sounds like 50 Finish cheerleaders helping the Kurdish Peshmerga. Not exactly a force multiplier against ISIS. Their presence and contribution is negligible so for Muslims to attack allegedly based on this tells me it's more about blind hatred of the Western infidel than revenge for battlefield reverses suffered by ISIS.

Again, the Finns have not bombed inside Iraq or taken part in combat operations. Their assistance seems to be window dressing more than anything probably so they qualify for some U.S. goodies.

Hey KenH,

not rationalizing the terrorist attack

I was clear that I was not justifying a terrorist attack, as targeting innocent civilians is immoral – period. It doesn’t matter whether Spain and Finland send their troops to literally barbeque and eat Muslim babies – Muslims cannot respond to the crimes of others by committing actions deemed immoral under the sacred law.

Rationalizing has to do with observing actions and motivations; one can both condemn the dropping of the atomic bomb and come to a rational conclusion why it was dropped on Hiroshima and not Muscat or Nairobi.

blind hatred and desire to kill Western infidels is part of the motive

Of course, they are extremists – this should be a base level assumption. These are very dangerous and unstable people. I am making a simple statement; if governments like Spain and Finland want to publicly join an International Coalition against Daesh and send their troops to train other troops that will be on the front lines against Daesh, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out they are attracting attention and making their country a target for retaliation; this is simple logic – morality has nothing to do with it. What you consider to be sufficient casus belli has nothing to do with it; if they have determined training enemy troops is cause enough to warrant an action, that’s all one needs to know to develop policies to avoid catching their attention.

Now if Daesh starts sending people to slit throats in Ecuador or Mongolia, I’ll correct myself and agree, there seems to be absolutely no rational reason for these guys to target specific countries and there is literally nothing you can do to stay off their radar.

More like no Israel, no U.S. invasion of Iraq since they and their U.S. agents were clamoring for regime change.

OK – so let’s go with nuance then; no Wahhabi-Salafi extremists, then no terrorism to worry about.

But I’ve noticed you pull your punches when it comes to Jews and Israel.

Why, because I distinguish between decent and honest Jews and vile, dishonest ones – or because when we retake sovereignty over the Holy Land, I don’t want a bloodbath?

it doesn’t take a genius to figure out they are attracting attention and making their country a target for retaliation; this is simple logic

And that's why they shouldn't permit Muslims to settle in their respective nations. There will always be a percentage of diaspora Muslims who sympathize with the ultra radicals and willing to commit acts of violence on their behalf.

This doesn't mean I hate Muslims as this is a factual observation . I don't hate grizzly bears but wouldn't want to raise one as a pet or live near them and if I did I would need to carry a high caliber weapon and/or bear spray at all times since even though the odds are against it, they do attack humans on occasion.

Likewise, there are things I admire about Muslims such as their ability to resist cultural Marxism and their willingness to fight invaders and threats to their way of life even though the odds are heavily against them such as Afghanistan 1979-88 and today. But generally speaking that doesn't mean they would make great additions as neighbors and fellow citizens given the jarring worldviews and vast cultural differences and we're seeing that throughout the Western world today.

Now if Daesh starts sending people to slit throats in Ecuador or Mongolia

Ecuador doesn't have a Muslim population or wish to import one, so they won't have to worry about it. Mongolia, however, did send a small contingent of troops to Iraq and later to Afghanistan during Obama's surge in 2009. ISIS, al qaeda and the Taliban must have short memories since Mongolia hasn't suffered any terror attacks inspired by those groups even though 5-6% of their population is Muslim.http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=17991

Why, because I distinguish between decent and honest Jews and vile, dishonest ones – or because when we retake sovereignty over the Holy Land, I don’t want a bloodbath?

No, I applaud that, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge the role Israel and the diaspora Jewish population plays in shaping American foreign policy vis-a-vis the Muslim world.

It sounds like 50 Finish cheerleaders helping the Kurdish Peshmerga. Not exactly a force multiplier against ISIS. Their presence and contribution is negligible so for Muslims to attack allegedly based on this tells me it's more about blind hatred of the Western infidel than revenge for battlefield reverses suffered by ISIS.

Again, the Finns have not bombed inside Iraq or taken part in combat operations. Their assistance seems to be window dressing more than anything probably so they qualify for some U.S. goodies.

I was clear that I was not justifying a terrorist attack, as targeting innocent civilians is immoral - period. It doesn't matter whether Spain and Finland send their troops to literally barbeque and eat Muslim babies - Muslims cannot respond to the crimes of others by committing actions deemed immoral under the sacred law.

Rationalizing has to do with observing actions and motivations; one can both condemn the dropping of the atomic bomb and come to a rational conclusion why it was dropped on Hiroshima and not Muscat or Nairobi.

blind hatred and desire to kill Western infidels is part of the motive

Of course, they are extremists - this should be a base level assumption. These are very dangerous and unstable people. I am making a simple statement; if governments like Spain and Finland want to publicly join an International Coalition against Daesh and send their troops to train other troops that will be on the front lines against Daesh, it doesn't take a genius to figure out they are attracting attention and making their country a target for retaliation; this is simple logic - morality has nothing to do with it. What you consider to be sufficient casus belli has nothing to do with it; if they have determined training enemy troops is cause enough to warrant an action, that's all one needs to know to develop policies to avoid catching their attention.

Now if Daesh starts sending people to slit throats in Ecuador or Mongolia, I'll correct myself and agree, there seems to be absolutely no rational reason for these guys to target specific countries and there is literally nothing you can do to stay off their radar.

More like no Israel, no U.S. invasion of Iraq since they and their U.S. agents were clamoring for regime change.

OK - so let's go with nuance then; no Wahhabi-Salafi extremists, then no terrorism to worry about.

But I’ve noticed you pull your punches when it comes to Jews and Israel.

Why, because I distinguish between decent and honest Jews and vile, dishonest ones - or because when we retake sovereignty over the Holy Land, I don't want a bloodbath?

Peace.

it doesn’t take a genius to figure out they are attracting attention and making their country a target for retaliation; this is simple logic

And that’s why they shouldn’t permit Muslims to settle in their respective nations. There will always be a percentage of diaspora Muslims who sympathize with the ultra radicals and willing to commit acts of violence on their behalf.

This doesn’t mean I hate Muslims as this is a factual observation . I don’t hate grizzly bears but wouldn’t want to raise one as a pet or live near them and if I did I would need to carry a high caliber weapon and/or bear spray at all times since even though the odds are against it, they do attack humans on occasion.

Likewise, there are things I admire about Muslims such as their ability to resist cultural Marxism and their willingness to fight invaders and threats to their way of life even though the odds are heavily against them such as Afghanistan 1979-88 and today. But generally speaking that doesn’t mean they would make great additions as neighbors and fellow citizens given the jarring worldviews and vast cultural differences and we’re seeing that throughout the Western world today.

Now if Daesh starts sending people to slit throats in Ecuador or Mongolia

Ecuador doesn’t have a Muslim population or wish to import one, so they won’t have to worry about it. Mongolia, however, did send a small contingent of troops to Iraq and later to Afghanistan during Obama’s surge in 2009. ISIS, al qaeda and the Taliban must have short memories since Mongolia hasn’t suffered any terror attacks inspired by those groups even though 5-6% of their population is Muslim.

Use of multiple, non-Anonymous handles for commenting on this webzine is strongly discouraged, and your secret (real or fictitious) email allows you to authenticate your commenter-identity, preventing others from assuming it, accidentally or otherwise.

Therefore, keeping your Name+Email combination is important, and the 'Remember' feature saves it for you as a cookie on your device/browser.

Also, activating the 'Remember' feature enables the Agree/Disagree/LOL/Troll buttons on all comments.

Email Replies to my Comment

Body of Comment

Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter

Not true. The Khoi San indigenous peoples were nomads whose territory ranged from Southern Angola to the Cape of Good Hope. They were hunter gatherers who did not grow food crops of any kind and constructed minimalist grass huts for shelter.
The Negroid Bantu peoples started to move south long ...

Things are fine over at Gary Cohn's house.
The wine flows freely and the women are all smiles.
If the economy isn't that great what is the worst that could happen?
An underground bunker?
I'm sure Obergruper Steiner can save us all.

Funny how many seem to forget Bannon worked for Goldman Sachs, and that it is far more likely Bannon was just acting, NOT LEADING SOME IDIOTIC "AMERICA FIRST" FACTION OF TRUMP"S CABINET.
Either many reporters/writers are stupid, or just playing dumb, but Trump is a zionist whole, period.
B...

The assets sales simply cannot account for the massive deficits year after year. Those deficits are covered by new dollars. The world is a big place even relative to the US, and that inflation is spread throughout the world. And that is why the world-wide inflation is low, including in the US. If...

They will no doubt do great things with it.
Why would we care? Boers had to either give up power or keep their power in a smaller area. I don't think anyone believes that it was demographically sustainable for Boers to keep it all...

Reagan once quoted an Arab guy from the 14th cent., "When the empire was young, taxes were low and revenue was high. When the empire was old, taxes were high and revenue was low." I've always thought that was an early statement of the same thing.

I like to consider the matter by examining the debt. I and several students spent a week exam ining US material assessts, they are vast. But hardly enough to cover the national debt upon which are constant deficit spending is the result of.
If i was loan shark and came calling on the mar...

Disagree, all the Anglo countries have chronic trade deficits. America, like Australia and Canada, is a land-rich country that mainly sustains its trade deficits by selling real estate to foreigners. Britain limps along by selling off real estate in London. In the 1980s, it literally sold its fam...

Fiat money changed the old model of international trade.
Prior to the destruction of real money, a nation could run a small BOP deficit for a short time; but then the creditors would no longer trade until the deficit was paid with real valuta. ( gold sometimes silver )
It was called a balance of ...

Also among the most significant "systemic debt" problems is the systemic and systematic destruction of the working capital of small businesses and the entrepreneurial class by what the global financial system deceitfully refers to as "merchant discounts" or "merchant fees" on transactions that ar...

I can't find the cite, but I read in an early discussion of tariffs, c.1800, someone proposed that they were fine for revenue, and the proper level was up to the point where it started to restrict trade, and beyond would bring in less revenue. It impressed me when I read it as an early expression...

We have been able to sustain our trade deficit and debt because we have the world's reserve currency. We produce dollars, spend them, and the world has to take them. Our main export is dollars (and world-wide inflation).
When China's economy eclipses ours, their currency will replace the doll...

To Author,
Good and reason based article.
I would add that Americans buying of goods and services with corrupted debt dollars creates taxes on every world country and their citizens, not just on Americans. Because this debt is never repaid, but just added to, it is highly inflationary and...

I think it is spot on accurate that no country exercises more free trade policy to the ideal than the US among developed countries. And we do so to the detriment of citizens. It is not unwise to protect a share of employments for one's citizens. Europeans are notorious for the practice.
...

A very good article. But, as with many other things, (most) economists' way of thinking is- if it is common sense, to hell with it. There is something Freudian about it all: they'll invent all sorts of absurd excuses rather than face reality.

Yes, libertarians ought to oppose tax increases, which is what tariffs are. We hold that voluntary exchanges are by definition advantageous to their participants.
Tariffs = good when a nascent industry needs protection in order to take-off. Tariffs = bad when a nations industry are monopoly p...

The lesson is no never give up power. The Boers didn't bite off more than can chew. They gave up power.
Give the blacks something substantial, valuable, something they can claim – maybe Natal, Rand or the area around Port Elisabeth.
They will no doubt do great things with it.

You didn't mention the decades of forced expropriation by the white-socialist apartheid government under the Land Act and the Group Areas Act. During the 1960s and 1970s, Sophiatown, Pageview and District Six were all ethnically cleansed by the apartheid government, and their black, coloured and ...